Everything Obama does is either a lie, or is advanced by lies.

Consider  the "cap and trade" bill -- ostensibly a law to fight global warming. Right there, you know it's a fantasy. The Democrats might just as well write a bill to fight the invasion of gnomes. The global warming farrago is a fantasy world, and Congress is living in that fantasy world. That's dangerous for a nation.

 Liberals are determined to believe in the global-warming fantasy, because of what they can accomplish with it, namely, limit industrial production and economic development. Those are two things they abhor and detest. They want to live in medieval England. They picture themselves in a merrie old land in days of olde, when knights were bolde, and toilet paper wasn't invented -- you wiped your assse on a blade of grass, and walked away contented.

That's the world they want. To get it, to make us revert to medieval life, to limit production and development, they invented their fantasy global-warming theory. That form of Yahoo science justifies their bill with its crippling taxes on industry.

It's as if they should pass a law saying, "To fight the invasion of gnomes, all attractive women will have to go around in public naked." They don't believe in gnomes -- they just want women to go around naked. And they don't seriously know anything about the climate; they just want to cripple capitalism and production. That's their bait-and-switch.

And Obama wants to take more money from the evil white entrepreneurs and give it to the "people who really own it." He's a racist, intent on rewarding the poor, the black, the unions, the black, the oppressed, the black. . . He's a liar and a hypocrite, and he has the worst interests of our country at heart.

Perez Hilton apologizes for using a gay slur --  "fa**ot" (rhymes with "maggot").

Of all the things he could have apologized for, he chooses that! He regretted the possibility that his choice of words might bring discredit on his noble "cause" of portraying sexual perverts as perfectly normal, respectable people.

He could have apologized for his rotten-little-kid habit of drawing penises on photos of female celebrities. He could have apologized for imposing his own perverted political views as mandatory for all beauty-contest hopefuls. He could have apologized for being a would-be petty dictator. Or for being a sanctimonious guttersnipe. Or for being a filthy crawling insect. But he picks the bad word he used, which might reflect badly on deviants.

Because that's the kind of filthy Yahoo he is.

Sotomayor thinks a "wise Latina woman" will render better judgment than a whitey. OK, so what about a stupid Latina woman? One who wouldn't even have gotten into law school if it hadn't been for affirmative action? One who thinks it's OK to side corruptly with her own pet demographic group from the bench, saying to Hell with the law, the facts, justice, and the Constitution? What about that Latina?

We already had one racist moron on the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall. He too was an affirmative-action dummass, and he saw his role as to give the black party to any case coming before him, just what they wanted. He was there to enforce and institutionalize his own stupid, thuggish bigotry.

Sotomayor is made from the same mold.  We don't need another racist anti-white moron on the Court, to flog Whitey and put him (us) in his place..

The Party Line on Iran has been circulating for awhile, and Obama has now latched onto it. From my blog, September 30, 2007:

The question of Iran now comes down to, "Who will bell the cat?"

Everyone knows it must be belled. Iran can't be allowed to get nuclear weapons. And Iran won't renounce them voluntarily. So SOMEBODY has to act, to destroy Iran's nuclear program.

Of course, fatuous lefties in this country bleat, "Iran has as much right to develop nuclear weapons as any other country." In a petty-fogging, legalistic way, that's true. . . .

What nations guide their actions by is not some abstract or hypothetical international law, but their own national interests. And it is not in our interests, nor in Israel's, to allow a lunatic who has vowed to nuke Israel, to develop nuclear weapons.

The cat must be belled, but the question remains, "Who will do it?"

So that sucker-bait has been in circulation at least since 2007: "Iran has a legal right to get nukes." It's an exceptionally stupid, but pious-sounding slogan -- thus it's just right for Obama! He doesn't want to do anything about Iran, he sympathizes with all Muslin and non-white nations, he has the black bigoted demagogue's inbred hostility to Jews, and so he has no intention of helping Israel stave off destruction. Therefore he trots out this petty-fogging legalistic argument devised by the Left to excuse his lack of action: "They have a legal right," yadda, yadda yadda.

This lying hypocrite is ruling our country for his OWN interests and purposes, and conniving and manipulating the American peopleto keep them from catching on.

Palau agrees to take Uighur detainees? What the Hell are they -- kittens, or prisoners of war?

This sad story seems to shine a little light on the auto companies' problems:

NPG Workers Reject Contract Concessions by Large Margin
by John Mariani    The Post-Standard   May 30, 2009

    Syracuse, NY -- Workers at New Process Gear again rejected a contract calling for wage and work-rule concessions.
    A union leader said the next step would be to start negotiating how the plant will be closed. . . .   
    This was the third time workers turned down a contract seeking concessions.

Is it just devilish pride that makes union workers cut their own throats like that? They seem determined to "rule or ruin." (Or maybe it's "Better to reign on the unemployment line than  serve in an auto factory.")

The moral I draw from the whole auto picture is, If you allow people to demand things they're not entitled to, and to grab power and money that don't belong to them, sooner or later there will be big problems.

Unions ruled the roost for decades; they were the master in the house, even though they didn't own the house. The climate of right-thinking public opinion was against the owners and managers; they couldn't get a break, no matter what. And that fundamental unfairness, that systematic injustice was bound to have repercussions eventually.  "There's a deal of ruin in a great industry," but the unions were up to the job.

Wrecking the whole production process through greed and selfishness was job #1.

Some columnists have referred to Nancy Pelosi's "fancy footwork" as she tries to built a coherent story out of all the conflicting statements and lies she's thrown up about her knowledge of water-boarding.

"Fancy footwork"? Now I know the real meaning of the term "rope-a-DOPE."

The humorless pinheads in government bureaucracies -- that is, the power-tripping tinhorn dictators squirreled away in the pens and warrens of Washington, D.C. -- have decided to crack down on Cheerios. The Wall Street Journal reports:

 

The Food and Drug Administration slapped General Mills Inc. with a warning over its Cheerios cereal, saying the box's claims about heart benefits contain "serious violations" of federal law.

In a May 5 warning letter sent to the company and posted on the FDA's Web site Tuesday, the agency said statements that the product is "clinically proven to help lower cholesterol" make the product a drug under federal law.

. . . General Mills spokesman Tom Forsythe said the Cheerios box's message saying the cereal can "lower your cholesterol 4% in six weeks" has been used for more than two years. . . . "The clinical study supporting Cheerios' cholesterol-lowering benefit is very strong," he said.

The FDA said such specific cholesterol-lowering claims can be made only for drugs, and it suggested that if General Mills wants to keep the box labeling as is, it should file a new-drug application for Cheerios.

 Let me get this straight: you can't say a product is "clinically proven to help lower cholesterol" even if that statement is true? Does the federal government now have the power to suppress true statements?

And when the FDA says, "such specific cholesterol-lowering claims can be made only for drugs," does that mean that they believe only drugs can lower cholesterol? That's not true! Bran and whole grains are acknowledged to help lower cholesterol. You damn-sure can raise your cholesterol by what you eat, so I have to believe you can lower it by dietary choices. It's not just drugs that control it.

So WTF? Here the pinheads are, going after one of the cereals most nutritionists like best (because it has little added sugar -- the kiddies add their own, later!). Are the bureaucrats denying established facts of nutritional science? Or are they denying a company's right to print the truth?

Where do they get off?

Colin Powell isn't a RINO. He's a WISC (Wolf In Sheep's Clothing). He's one of the breed that are always trying to get Republicans to be just like Democrats -- to think like them, and have the same policies as them. That's convenient for Democrats!But it's pure sneakiness and underhandedness. Like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Obama doesn't like this country. He goes all around the world talking about how "arrogant" and "dismissive" we've been. He grovels and accepts all the accusations of our enemies. (What if someone did that in his personal life -- rushed to accept any criticism anybody made of him, fair or not? That person would be a cringing little basket case. That's what Obama wants for us.)

He doesn't like white people, that's for sure. He sat calmly and listened to all of Jeremiah Wright's vicious white-baiting "sermons" or incitements.

He showed his contempt for England, while sucking up to all the Muslim countries -- Saudi Arabia, Iran.

He wants to cut our military capability, agreeing with the old left-wing notion, "The enemy is us."

He wants to tax all the "rich white people" to buy the houses of the unfortunate sub-prime poor/black buyers. He laughs like a loon when discussing this country's economic difficulties. He refuses to even show us his birth certificate, so we'll know for sure he's eligible to be president, saying "Up yours, America." He continually uses the old black-racist reverse-psychology thing: You won't like me because I'm black, shuck, jive, etc...

He just plain doesn't like this country, and wants to convert it into something more in tune with his vision of a Muslim utopia.

Whatever they may say about Sarah Palin, she would have been a refreshing change in the White House. She had one thing as rare as diamonds: integrity.

When she got to the Alaska Statehouse, she didn't start to fit in with the old-time pols -- the currupt, greedy, complacent tin-horn tyrants that infest our public life. She wasn't intimidated by Stevens and Young, those two drooling retards in the Senate. She killed the Bridge to Nowhere, which Stevens had thrown a temper tantrum about on the floor of the senate. (Neanderthals like Stevens think they're entitled to get whatever they demand, you see. It's all about what want -- not the people who elected them.)

She fought the oil companies to a standstill, and got a better royalty deal for the people of the state.
She supported drilling for oil in ANWR.
She endorsed Young's opponent, and asked Stevens to come clean about the criminal accusations against him.
She sold the luxury jet her predecessor had purchased.

She didn't "go along to get along," which is how the old-boy political network is supposed to work.

You know how it is -- no matter how solid and conservative a guy is when he first goes to Washington, he soon "goes native." He gets all squishy like John McCain, and ends up sponsoring things like the McCain-Feingold Act, to limit political speech and what ordinary citizens can do with their own money.

It would have been nice to have ONE ruler in Washington who wouldn't go along to get along. But no, the cretinous left had to make up lurid tales about Palin's child not being her child, etc. The subhuman Yahoos had their way once again.

I thought the Iraq War (but not Afghanistan) was foolish. I wasn't mad at Saddam Hussein, and I didn't see the connection between him and the 9/11 attack.

It was stupid to sign the budget-bloating prescription-drug entitlement. The same goes for the farm bill he signed. Our incontinent federal government is squirting money like a dysentery victim squirting diarrhea.

The McCain-Feingold Free-Speech Limitation Act -- if Bush thought it was unconstitutional, why did he sign it?

 But, deciding on the Surge was his finest hour. Think back on the situation: Iraq truly looked like a quagmire. Shi'ites were fighting Sunnis, and Iraq threatened to degenerate into civil war. Suicide bombers and IED's were taking a deadly toll. So the question was, Do you "double down," go for more troops and different tactics, and a new general? Or do you cut your losses while you can?

Bush's decision to go for the surge took firm resoluteness. It took someone who had the power to decide, who would be responsible for the results,  and who wouldn't dither. It took guts. And Bush made the decision.

I think that decision will rank with Eisenhower's decision to launch the Normandy D-Day attack. Thinkquest (http://library.thinkquest.org/) relates that story:

The Allies were going to launch their attack on June 5, 1944 at 4 a.m., but the weather was extremely bad. The waves were great, and the landing crafts might sink. There would also be no air support, and naval fire wouldn't be that great. Eisenhower sat stunned, and had to decide. His decision was a 24 hour delay. Eisenhower's decision was wise, because on June 5, at the time of the expected invasion, the waves almost reached hurricane proportions. Eisenhower once again studied the weather on June 6. It was supposed to be better; not far better, but better.

Eisenhower sat there for a moment. He thought of what would happen, what could happen, and how it would happen. Eisenhower even wrote two versions of a speech for D-Day just in case it wasn't a success. It would be a hard decision for Eisenhower. But, after a few moments, Eisenhower stated,  "Well, we'll go!"

Someone has to make the decision. Someone has to say "we'll go" or "we won't go"  -- someone who can't hide, who will be blamed or praised according to the results. Bush made a decision, and proved he was worthy to be commander-in-chief. All the carpers, protesters, nuisances and cheap second-guessers overlook that fact.

Did you ever wonder, How could the German people, an educated, religious, civilized people, get taken in by a guttersnipe like Hitler? I think I'm getting an inkling, watching the hysteria and mindless euphoria surrounding Obama -- an unknown quantity, a beginner with no objective qualifications for being President, except being black

Here are some excerpts from a series of articles now on NewsBusters:

Lisa Gladden (D), a Maryland state senator, made the following asinine statement last week : "It doesn’t matter if the state of Maryland is broke as long as Barack Obama is President of the United States – this is great!"

 

Reporter Robin McKie carries Hansen's latest "we'd better act or else" warning at the UK Guardian.

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

    Sadly, however, Verizon did something yesterday that I think is far worse: it left a rambling, pre-recorded message on my home answering machine imploring me to watch his “historic” inaugural, using a tone that assumed we are all liberal Democrats and Obamists.

“I'm so happy my children have a real hero to look up to” in “a  truly scholarly man” who will make an “intelligent, constitutionally brilliant President” at a time when “people are so ready to rejoice and celebrate what is hopefully the return of the foundation of the United States” so “my eyes well up just thinking about” Barack Obama being sworn in since “I'm calm for the first time in eight years,” knowing “somebody is in charge that has such intelligence and grace and is so thoughtful.”

That's some of the giddy excitement expressed by a few of the many celebrities swarming to Washington, DC this weekend for Obama's inauguration which were collected by USA Today for articles in Thursday's and Friday's “Life” section:

Actress Gloria Reuben (IMDb page), now in TNT's Raising the Bar and formerly on NBC's ER, will be on hand Tuesday “to watch the magic moment happen” since she yearns for an end to the “hell” of the Bush years.

    It's a once-in-a-lifetime situation. The last eight years have been such hell. We're all so excited about the hope of things to come. I really think that's part of it. People are so ready to rejoice and celebrate what is hopefully the return of the foundation of the United States.

 A few minutes after 2 pm Eastern time, anchorman Wolf Blitzer recalled "Soledad [O’Brien] and I were talking about this earlier and she was saying metaphorically in some ways, the pilot of that airplane is very much like Barack Obama -- that he got the plane down safely, but everybody else had to join together to get out of the plane and pull together to get through that adversity. I thought that was an interesting metaphor.

Sieg Heil!

One day two swindlers came to this city; they made people believe that they were weavers, and declared they could manufacture the finest cloth to be imagined. Their colours and patterns, they said, were not only exceptionally beautiful, but the clothes made of their material possessed the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who was unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid.

“That must be wonderful cloth,” thought the emperor. “If I were to be dressed in a suit made of this cloth I should be able to find out which men in my empire were unfit for their places, and I could distinguish the clever from the stupid. I must have this cloth woven for me without delay.” And he gave a large sum of money to the swindlers, in advance, that they should set to work without any loss of time.

One day two swindlers came to this commonwealth; they made people believe they were the makers of a new order, and that they could make the finest changes this country could imagine. Their changes were not only beautiful, but full of hope. But this hopey changey new world order would only be invisible to anyone who was unfit, stupid, racist or bigoted.

The two swindlers made sure to repeat the message over and over, saying, "The only reason you wouldn't buy our new order, is you're stupid, racist, and bigoted against people not like you." When no one attacked them or criticized their merchandise, they were reduced to making mock attacks on themselves. They imitated how those stupid, racist, bigoted opponents would attack them if they did attack them: "Oh, and have you heard? Their changes and hopes are invisible!"

So huge crowds shouted back, "We're not like those stupid bigoted ones! We see your beautiful new hopey changes!" The whole populace, in order to prove they were not stupid, racist and bigoted, ran headlong to grant acceptance to the swindlers' merchandise. And they gave a huge beneficent gift to the swindlers, in advance, that they should set to work without any loss of time.

This isn't Aesop, it's Hans Christian Andersen. But here's the moral anyway: people will fall for any kind of stupid crap, and people make themselves believe anything, if you first convince them that believing the given line of crap is a sign of great inner moral worth and goodness. That's the whole key to understanding liberals.